Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Original article
Austral J. Vet. Sci.
Vol 57, e5701 (2025)
DOI: 10.4206/ajvs.57.01

Effects of age, season, breed, and sperm counting chamber on boar semen quality variables in tropical conditions

1 Doctorado en Ciencias Naturales para el Desarrollo (DOCINADE), Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Costa Rica; Laboratory of Animal Reproduction, School of Agronomy, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, San Carlos Campus, Costa Rica.
2 Laboratory of Animal Reproduction, School of Agronomy, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, San Carlos Campus, Costa Rica.
3 Department of Cellular Biology, Functional Biology and Physical Anthropology, Campus Burjassot, University of Valencia, Burjassot, Spain.
4 University of Costa Rica, Faculty of Agri-Food Sciences, Alfredo Volio Mata Experimental Station, Cartago, Costa Rica.
5 Population Medicine Research Program, Veterinary Medicine School, National University of Costa Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica.
Keywords: spermatozoa swine reproduction CASA-systems motility

Submitted: 2024-09-09

Accepted: 2025-01-14

Published: 2025-03-20

*Corresponding author:
anvalverde@tec.ac.cr

How to Cite

Sevilla, F., Murillo, L., Araya-Zúñiga, I. ., Silvestre, M. A., Saborío-Montero, A., Vargas-Leitón, B., & Valverde, A. (2025). Effects of age, season, breed, and sperm counting chamber on boar semen quality variables in tropical conditions. Austral Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 57(1), e5701. https://doi.org/10.4206/ajvs.57.01

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Francisco Sevilla, Laura Murillo, Ignacio Araya-Zúñiga, Miguel A Silvestre, Alejandro Saborío-Montero, Bernardo Vargas-Leitón, Anthony Valverde

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In the porcine industry, male sperm quality plays a relevant role in the productivity and profitability of the productive system in the tropics. Understanding the factors affecting semen quality is important for optimizing male reproductive efficiency. The present study aimed to evaluate the seminal quality associated with season, breed, age, and sperm counting chamber in boar ejaculates. A total of 22 sexually mature and healthy boars from maternal and sire commercial breeds were utilized as semen donors, with an average age (mean ± standard deviation) of 21.0 ± 7.2 months. The boars were housed individually in well-ventilated pens and fed a standard breeder mix. The boars were grouped according to age into three categories: <12 months, 12-24 months, and >24 months, and semen doses were collected from each boar during the dry and rainy seasons. Ejaculates with at least 75 % morphologically normal sperm and more than 8.5 x 109 total sperm per ejaculate were used. The semen doses were analyzed using Computer-Assisted Semen Analysis (CASA; ISAS® v1). The results showed that younger boars (<12 months) exhibited higher progressive and total sperm motility and faster swimming patterns than older boars. The estimation of total motility and fast spermatozoa increased during the rainy season. The kinematic variables showed significant differences (P < 0.05) between the sperm counting chambers. The Duroc and Landrace breeds presented spermatozoa with greater total motility, whereas the terminal sire line breeds showed accelerated linear progressiveness (P < 0.05). Overall, the impact of various factors on seminal and kinematic variables in boar ejaculates, including age, season, genetic breed composition, and sperm counting chamber, enables us to better understand semen quality in boars. This emphasizes the importance of optimizing swine reproductive management practices in sexually active boars.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Banaszewska, D., & Kondracki, S. (2012). An Assessment of the Breeding Maturity of Insemination Boars Based on Ejaculate Quality Changes. Folia Biologica, 60(3), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.3409/fb60_34.151162
  2. Barquero, V., Roldan, E. R. S., Soler, C., Vargas-Leitón, B., Sevilla, F., Camacho, M., & Valverde, A. (2021). Relationship between Fertility Traits and Kinematics in Clusters of Boar Ejaculates. Biology, 10(7), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10070595
  3. Barquero, V., Soler, C., Sevilla, F., Calderón‐Calderón, J., & Valverde, A. (2021). A Bayesian analysis of boar spermatozoa kinematics and head morphometrics and their relationship with litter size fertility variables. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 56(7), 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13946
  4. Baud, D., Pattaroni, C., Vulliemoz, N., Castella, V., Marsland, B. J., & Stojanov, M. (2019). Sperm Microbiota and Its Impact on Semen Parameters. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00234
  5. Boe-Hansen, G. B., & Satake, N. (2019). An update on boar semen assessments by flow cytometry and CASA. Theriogenology, 137, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.043
  6. Bompart, D., García-Molina, A., Valverde, A., Caldeira, C., Yániz, J., Núñez de Murga, M., & Soler, C. (2018). CASA-Mot technology: how results are affected by the frame rate and counting chamber. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 810. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17551
  7. Bompart, D., Vázquez, R. F., Gómez, R., Valverde, A., Roldán, E. R. S., García-Molina, A., & Soler, C. (2019). Combined effects of type and depth of counting chamber, and rate of image frame capture, on bull sperm motility and kinematics. Animal Reproduction Science, 209, 106169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2019.106169
  8. Caldeira, C., Hernández-Ibáñez, S., Valverde, A., Martin, P., Herranz-Jusdado, J. G., Gallego, V., Asturiano, J. F., Dzyuba, B., Pšenička, M., & Soler, C. (2019). Standardization of sperm motility analysis by using CASA-Mot for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), European eel (Anguilla anguilla) and Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii). Aquaculture, 502, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.12.001
  9. Calderón-Calderón, J., Sevilla, F., Roldan, E. R. S., Barquero, V., & Valverde, A. (2022). Influence of Fat-Soluble Vitamin Intramuscular Supplementation on Kinematic and Morphometric Sperm Parameters of Boar Ejaculates. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.908763
  10. Carreira, J. T., Trevizan, J. T., Carvalho, I. R., Kipper, B., Rodrigues, L. H., Silva, C., Perri, S. H. V., Drevet, J. R., & Koivisto, M. B. (2017). Does sperm quality and DNA integrity differ in cryopreserved semen samples from young, adult, and aged Nellore bulls? Basic and Clinical Andrology, 27(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12610-017-0056-9
  11. Ciereszko, A., Ottobre, J. S., & Glogowski, J. (2000). Effects of season and breed on sperm acrosin activity and semen quality of boars. Animal Reproduction Science, 64(1–2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00194-9
  12. Czubaszek, M., Andraszek, K., & Banaszewska, D. (2020). Influence of the age of the individual on the stability of boar sperm genetic material. Theriogenology, 147, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.11.018
  13. Dalmutt, A. C., Moreno, L. Z., Gomes, V. T. M., Cunha, M. P. V., Barbosa, M. R. F., Sato, M. I. Z., Knöbl, T., Pedroso, A. C., & Moreno, A. M. (2020). Characterization of bacterial contaminants of boar semen: identification by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and antimicrobial susceptibility profiling. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 48(1), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2020.1848845
  14. De Ambrogi, M., Ballester, J., Saravia, F., Caballero, I., Johannisson, A., Wallgren, M., Andersson, M., & Rodriguez‐Martinez, H. (2006). Effect of storage in short‐ and long‐term commercial semen extenders on the motility, plasma membrane and chromatin integrity of boar spermatozoa. International Journal of Andrology, 29(5), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00694.x
  15. Del Gallego, R., Sadeghi, S., Blasco, E., Soler, C., Yániz, J. L., & Silvestre, M. A. (2017). Effect of chamber characteristics, loading and analysis time on motility and kinetic variables analysed with the CASA-mot system in goat sperm. Animal Reproduction Science, 177, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.12.010
  16. Dowsett, K. F., & Knott, L. M. (1996). The influence of age and breed on stallion semen. Theriogenology, 46(3), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-691X(96)00162-8
  17. Fair, S., & Romero-Aguirregomezcorta, J. (2019). Implications of boar sperm kinematics and rheotaxis for fertility after preservation. Theriogenology, 137, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.032
  18. Flowers, W. L. (2008). Genetic and phenotypic variation in reproductive traits of AI boars. Theriogenology, 70(8), 1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.016
  19. Flowers, W. L. (2022). Factors affecting the production of quality ejaculates from boars. Animal Reproduction Science, 246, 106840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2021.106840
  20. Fraczek, M., Szumala-Kakol, A., Jedrzejczak, P., Kamieniczna, M., & Kurpisz, M. (2007). Bacteria trigger oxygen radical release and sperm lipid peroxidation in in vitro model of semen inflammation. Fertility and Sterility, 88(4), 1076–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.025
  21. Fraser, L., Strzeżek, J., Filipowicz, K., Mogielnicka-Brzozowska, M., & Zasiadczyk, L. (2016). Age and seasonal-dependent variations in the biochemical composition of boar semen. Theriogenology, 86(3), 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.02.035
  22. Gączarzewicz, D. (2015). Influence of chamber type integrated with computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) system on the results of boar semen evaluation. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 18(4), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjvs-2015-0106
  23. Gadea, J., Sellés, E., & Marco, M. A. (2004). The predictive value of porcine seminal parameters on fertility outcome under commercial conditions. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 39(5), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2004.00513.x
  24. Gallagher, M. T., Smith, D. J., & Kirkman-Brown, J. C. (2018). CASA: tracking the past and plotting the future. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 867. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17420
  25. Gallego, V., & Asturiano, J. F. (2018). Sperm motility in fish: technical applications and perspectives through CASA-Mot systems. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 820. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17460
  26. Gallego, V., Carneiro, P. C. F., Mazzeo, I., Vílchez, M. C., Peñaranda, D. S., Soler, C., Pérez, L., & Asturiano, J. F. (2013). Standardization of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) sperm motility evaluation by CASA software. Theriogenology, 79(7), 1034–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.01.019
  27. Gloria, A., Carluccio, A., Contri, A., Wegher, L., Valorz, C., & Robbe, D. (2013). The effect of the chamber on kinetic results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Andrology, 1(6), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00121.x
  28. Goericke‐Pesch, S., & Failing, K. (2013). Retrospective Analysis of Canine Semen Evaluations with Special Emphasis on the use of the Hypoosmotic Swelling (HOS) Test and Acrosomal Evaluation Using Spermac ®. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 48(2), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02134.x
  29. Gonzalez-Peña, D., Knox, R. V., Pettigrew, J., & Rodriguez-Zas, S. L. (2014). Impact of pig insemination technique and semen preparation on profitability1. Journal of Animal Science, 92(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6836
  30. Gonzalez-Pena, D., Knox, R. V., & Rodriguez-Zas, S. L. (2016). Contribution of semen trait selection, artificial insemination technique, and semen dose to the profitability of pig production systems: A simulation study. Theriogenology, 85(2), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.09.014
  31. Hallap, T., Jaakma, Ü., & Rodriguez‐Martinez, H. (2006). Changes in Semen Quality in Estonian Holstein AI Bulls at 3, 5 and 7 years of Age. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 41(3), 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00682.x
  32. Hancock, J., & Hovell, G. (1959). The Collection of Boar Semen. Vet Rec, 71, 664–665.
  33. Hoflack, G., Opsomer, G., Rijsselaere, T., Van Soom, A., Maes, D., De Kruif, A., & Duchateau, L. (2007). Comparison of Computer‐assisted Sperm Motility Analysis Parameters in Semen from Belgian Blue and Holstein–Friesian Bulls. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 42(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00745.x
  34. Holt, C., Holt, W. V, Moore, H. D., Reed, H. C., & Curnock, R. M. (1997). Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. Journal of Andrology, 18(3), 312–323.
  35. Hoogewijs, M. K., De Vliegher, S. P., Govaere, J. L., De Schauwer, C., De Kruif, A., & Van Soom, A. (2012). Influence of counting chamber type on CASA outcomes of equine semen analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal, 44(5), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00523.x
  36. Huang, Y. H., Lo, L. L., Liu, S. H., & Yang, T. S. (2010). Age‐related changes in semen quality characteristics and expectations of reproductive longevity in Duroc boars. Animal Science Journal, 81(4), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00753.x
  37. Ibănescu, I., Leiding, C., Ciornei, Ş. G., Roșca, P., Sfartz, I., & Drugociu, D. (2016). Differences in CASA output according to the chamber type when analyzing frozen-thawed bull sperm. Animal Reproduction Science, 166, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.01.005
  38. Kelso, K. A., Redpath, A., Noble, R. C., & Speake, B. K. (1997). Lipid and antioxidant changes in spermatozoa and seminal plasma throughout the reproductive period of bulls. Reproduction, 109(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1530/jrf.0.1090001
  39. Kennedy, B. W., & Wilkins, J. N. (1984). Boar, breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 64(4), 833–843. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas84-097
  40. Kipper, B. H., Trevizan, J. T., Carreira, J. T., Carvalho, I. R., Mingoti, G. Z., Beletti, M. E., Perri, S. H. V., Franciscato, D. A., Pierucci, J. C., & Koivisto, M. B. (2017). Sperm morphometry and chromatin condensation in Nelore bulls of different ages and their effects on IVF. Theriogenology, 87, 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.08.017
  41. Knecht, D., Jankowska-Mąkosa, A., & Duziński, K. (2017). The effect of age, interval collection and season on selected semen parameters and prediction of AI boars productivity. Livestock Science, 201, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.04.013
  42. Knecht, D., Środoń, S., & Duziński, K. (2014). The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. South African Journal of Animal Sciences, 44(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4314/SAJAS.V44I1.1
  43. Kondracki, S., Bonaszewska, D., & Mielnicka, C. (2005). The effect of age on the morphometric sperm traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica). Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, 10(1), 3–13.
  44. Krupa, E., Wolfová, M., Krupová, Z., & Žáková, E. (2020). Estimation of economic weights for number of teats and sperm quality traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 137(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12437
  45. Kumaresan, A., Bujarbaruah, K. M., Kadirvel, G., Khargharia, G., Sarma, R. G., Goswami, J., Basumatary, R., Palaniappan, K., & Bardoloi, R. K. (2011). Early sexual maturity in local boars of Northeastern India: Age-related changes in testicular growth, epididymal sperm characteristics and peripheral testosterone levels. Theriogenology, 75(4), 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.10.009
  46. Kunavongkrit, A., Suriyasomboon, A., Lundeheim, N., Heard, T. W., & Einarsson, S. (2005). Management and sperm production of boars under differing environmental conditions. Theriogenology, 63(2 SPEC. ISS.), 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.039
  47. Lenz, R. W., Kjelland, M. E., VonderHaar, K., Swannack, T. M., & Moreno, J. F. (2011). A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer1. Journal of Animal Science, 89(2), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3056
  48. Li, D., Xu, Y., Wang, M., Fang, S., Li, S. H., & Cui, Y. (2023). Differences of semen microbiota among breeding boars with different reproductive ages. Journal of Animal Science, 101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad247
  49. Long, J. A., Bongalhardo, D. C., Pelaéz, J., Saxena, S., Settar, P., O’Sullivan, N. P., & Fulton, J. E. (2010). Rooster semen cryopreservation: Effect of pedigree line and male age on postthaw sperm function. Poultry Science, 89(5), 966–973. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00227
  50. Madrigal‐Valverde, M., Bittencourt, R. F., Brito, L. S., Lents, M. P., Santos, E. S., & Valverde‐Abarca, A. (2020). Analysis of testicular variables, semen motility and kinematics‐derived indexes in boar using a CASA‐Mot system. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 55(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13619
  51. Maes, D., Lopez Rodriguez, A., Rijsselaere, T., Vyt, P., & Van Soom, A. (2011). Artificial Insemination in Pigs. In Artificial Insemination in Farm Animals. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/16592
  52. Mandal, D. K., Kumar, M., & Tyagi, S. (2010). Effect of age on spermiogram of Holstein Friesian × Sahiwal crossbred bulls. Animal, 4(4), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991273
  53. McAnally, B. E., Smith, M. S., Wiegert, J. G., Palanisamy, V., Chitlapilly Dass, S., & Poole, R. K. (2023). Characterization of boar semen microbiome and association with sperm quality parameters. Journal of Animal Science, 101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad243
  54. Mrkun, J., Kosec, M., Zakosek, M., & Zrimsek, P. (2007). Method agreement between measuring of boar sperm concentration using Makler chamber and photometer. Acta Veterinaria, 57(5–6), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.2298/AVB0706563M
  55. Murphy, E. M., Kelly, A. K., O’Meara, C., Eivers, B., Lonergan, P., & Fair, S. (2018). Influence of bull age, ejaculate number, and season of collection on semen production and sperm motility parameters in Holstein Friesian bulls in a commercial artificial insemination centre. Journal of Animal Science, 96(6), 2408–2418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky130
  56. Nanni Peng, X. Z., & Li, L. (2015). Comparison of different counting chambers using a computer-assisted semen analyzer. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 61(5), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.3109/19396368.2015.1063175
  57. National Research Council. (2012). Nutrient Requirements of Swine. In Nutrient Requirements of Swine. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13298
  58. Okere, C., Joseph, A., & Ezekwe, M. (2005). Seasonal and Genotype variations in Libido, Semen Production and Quality in Artificial Insemination Boars. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 4, 885–888.
  59. Palacín, I., Vicente-Fiel, S., Santolaria, P., & Yániz, J. L. (2013). Standardization of CASA sperm motility assessment in the ram. Small Ruminant Research, 112(1–3), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.12.014
  60. Park, C. S., & Yi, Y. J. (2002). Comparison of semen characteristics, sperm freezability and testosterone concentration between Duroc and Yorkshire boars during seasons. Animal Reproduction Science, 73(1–2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(02)00129-X
  61. Peña, S. T., Gummow, B., Parker, A. J., & Paris, D. B. B. P. (2019a). Antioxidant supplementation mitigates DNA damage in boar (Sus scrofa domesticus) spermatozoa induced by tropical summer. PLOS ONE, 14(4), e0216143. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216143
  62. Peña, S. T., Stone, F., Gummow, B., Parker, A. J., & Paris, D. B. B. P. (2019b). Tropical summer induces DNA fragmentation in boar spermatozoa: Implications for evaluating seasonal infertility. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 31(3), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD18159
  63. Petrocelli, H., Batista, C., & Gosálvez, J. (2015). Seasonal variation in sperm characteristics of boars in Southern Uruguay. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 44(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902015000100001
  64. Jones, R. M., Mercante, J. W., & A. S. Neish. (2012). Reactive Oxygen Production Induced by the Gut Microbiota: Pharmacotherapeutic Implications. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 19(10), 1519–1529. https://doi.org/10.2174/092986712799828283
  65. Santolaria, P., Vicente-Fiel, S., Palacín, I., Fantova, E., Blasco, M. E., Silvestre, M. A., & Yániz, J. L. (2015). Predictive capacity of sperm quality parameters and sperm subpopulations on field fertility after artificial insemination in sheep. Animal Reproduction Science, 163, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.10.001
  66. Savic, R., Petrovic, M., Radojkovic, D., Radovic, C., & Parunovic, N. (2013). The effect of breed, boar and season on some properties of sperm. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 29(2), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH1302299S
  67. Schulze, M., Henning, H., Rüdiger, K., Wallner, U., & Waberski, D. (2013). Temperature management during semen processing: Impact on boar sperm quality under laboratory and field conditions. Theriogenology, 80(9), 990–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.07.026
  68. Sevilla, F., Soler, C., Araya-Zúñiga, I., Barquero, V., Roldan, E. R. S., & Valverde, A. (2023). Are There Differences between Methods Used for the Objective Estimation of Boar Sperm Concentration and Motility? Animals, 13(10), 1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101622
  69. Soler, C., Picazo-Bueno, J. Á., Micó, V., Valverde, A., Bompart, D., Blasco, F. J., Álvarez, J. G., & García-Molina, A. (2018). Effect of counting chamber depth on the accuracy of lensless microscopy for the assessment of boar sperm motility. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 924. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17467
  70. Sui, H., Wang, S., Liu, G., Meng, F., Cao, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Effects of heat stress on motion characteristics and metabolomic profiles of boar spermatozoa. Genes, 13(9), 1647. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13091647
  71. Tardif, S., Laforest, J.-P., Cormier, N., & Bailey, J. L. (1999). The importance of porcine sperm parameters on fertility in vivo. Theriogenology, 52(3), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00142-9
  72. Tremoen, N. H., Gaustad, A. H., Andersen-Ranberg, I., van Son, M., Zeremichael, T. T., Frydenlund, K., Grindflek, E., Våge, D. I., & Myromslien, F. D. (2018). Relationship between sperm motility characteristics and ATP concentrations, and association with fertility in two different pig breeds. Animal Reproduction Science, 193, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.04.075
  73. Tsakmakidis, I. A., Khalifa, T. A., & Boscos, C. M. (2012). Age-related changes in quality and fertility of porcine semen. Biological Research, 45(4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602012000400009
  74. Tsakmakidis, I. A., Lymberopoulos, A. G., & Khalifa, T. A. A. (2010). Relationship between sperm quality traits and field-fertility of porcine semen. Journal of Veterinary Science, 11(2), 151. https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2010.11.2.151
  75. Valverde, A., & Madrigal-Valverde, M. (2019). Assessment of counting chambers on boar sperm parameters analyzed by a CASA-Mot system. Agronomy Mesoamerican, 30(2), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.15517/am.v30i1.34145
  76. Valverde, A., Areán, H., Fernández, A., Bompart, D., García‐Molina, A., López‐Viana, J., & Soler, C. (2019a). Combined effect of type and capture area of counting chamber and diluent on Holstein bull sperm kinematics. Andrologia, 51(4), e13223. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13223
  77. Valverde, A., Madrigal, M., Caldeira, C., Bompart, D., de Murga, J. N., Arnau, S., & Soler, C. (2019b). Effect of frame rate capture frequency on sperm kinematic parameters and subpopulation structure definition in boars, analysed with a CASA‐Mot system. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 54(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13320
  78. Valverde, A., Madrigal-Valverde, M., Lotz, J., Bompart, D., & Soler, C. (2019c). Effect of video capture time on sperm kinematic parameters in breeding boars. Livestock Science, 220, 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.12.008
  79. Vyt, P., Maes, D., Quinten, C., Rijsselaere, T., Deley, W., Aarts, M., de Kruif, A., & Van Soom, A. (2008). Detailed motility evaluation of boar semen and its predictive value for reproductive performance in sows. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift, 77(5). https://doi.org/10.21825/vdt.87221
  80. Vyt, P., Maes, D., Rijsselaere, T., Dejonckheere, E., Castryck, F., & Van Soom, A. (2004). Motility Assessment of Porcine Spermatozoa: a Comparison of Methods. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 39(6), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2004.00538.x
  81. Waberski, D., Petrunkina, A. M., & Töpfer-Petersen, E. (2008). Can external quality control improve pig AI efficiency? Theriogenology, 70(8), 1346–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.006
  82. Winkle, T., Rosenbusch, B., Gagsteiger, F., Paiss, T., & Zoller, N. (2009). The correlation between male age, sperm quality and sperm DNA fragmentation in 320 men attending a fertility center. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 26(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9277-3
  83. Wolf, J., & Smital, J. (2009). Quantification of factors affecting semen traits in artificial insemination boars from animal model analyses1. Journal of Animal Science, 87(5), 1620–1627. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1373
  84. World Health Organization. (2021). Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen (Geneva, Ed.; Sixth Edit). ISBN 978 92 4 0030787.
  85. Yániz, J. L., Silvestre, M. A., Santolaria, P., & Soler, C. (2018). CASA-Mot in mammals: an update. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 799. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17432
  86. Yeste, M., Bonet, S., Rodríguez-Gil, J. E., Álamo, M. M. R. Del, & Rivera Del Álamo, M. M. (2018). Evaluation of sperm motility with CASA-Mot: Which factors may influence our measurements? Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 30(6), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD17475
  87. Yeste, M., Sancho, S., Briz, M., Pinart, E., Bussalleu, E., & Bonet, S. (2010). A diet supplemented with l-carnitine improves the sperm quality of Piétrain but not of Duroc and Large White boars when photoperiod and temperature increase. Theriogenology, 73(5), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.10.013
  88. Žaja, I. Ž., Samardžija, M., Vince, S., Majić-Balić, I., Vilić, M., Đuričić, D., & Milinković-Tur, S. (2016). Influence of boar breeds or hybrid genetic composition on semen quality and seminal plasma biochemical variables. Animal Reproduction Science, 164, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.11.027
  89. Zasiadczyk, L., Fraser, L., Kordan, W., & Wasilewska, K. (2015). Individual and seasonal variations in the quality of fractionated boar ejaculates. Theriogenology, 83(8), 1287–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.01.015
  90. Zhou, J., Chen, L., Li, J., Li, H., Hong, Z., Xie, M., Chen, S., & Yao, B. (2015). The Semen pH Affects Sperm Motility and Capacitation. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0132974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132974

Make a Submission

Make a Submission

Journal Metrics (2023) & Ranking

Impact Factor
→
0.5 (2024)
5 years Impact Factor
→
0.8
JCR Quartile
→
Q4
JIF Rank
→
134/170 (Veterinary Sciences)
SJR (2024)
→
0.244
SNIP (2024)
→
0.35

 

 

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Indexed in

Publisher


This journal is published by the Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile

Keywords